We Need More Than a "Clean-Energy" Moonshots:

In his thoughtful and provocative, October 28, 2010 Rolling Stone article, The Case for Obama,  Tim Dickinson argues that Obama is our first "green" president.  While acknowledging his failure to obtain a comprehensive climate bill,  Dickinson praises Obama for launching the equivalent of a "clean-energy moonshot" via targeting $94 billion of stimulus money for clean energy development,  enough to "double the nation's renewable-energy generating capacity by 2012 - bringing enough clean energy online to power New York around the clock...." while doubling "... the nation's manufacturing capacity for wind turbines and solar panels, bringing down the cost of  clean energy so it can compete with fossil fuels - even if Congress doesn't pass a carbon cap."  Dickinson goes on to laud the president for various steps to aggressively reduce pollution, including getting old cars off the roads through the Cash for Clunkers program, increasing CO2 restrictions  on new vehicles, and (most likely) having the EPA "...set limits on carbon emissions for large industrial polluters..."


This is all well and good, but far more is needed.  The "moonshot" analogy is fine for raising eyebrows, but the stakes far higher when  dealing with climate change than they ever were for the space race.  This is not just a matter of bolstering U.S. prestige, gaining further military advantage and generating future economic spin-offs; this is about the future of an energy devouring planet.





The Obama administration's current efforts have to be squared against the arguments laid out by James Fallows in this December 2010  The Atlantic article,  Dirty Coal, Clean Future,  in which Fallows presents indisputable evidence for the world's (and especially China's and the United States')  reliance on coal for decades yet to come. So, what's a nation to do, especially given the  projected poor results  for power plant scrubbing techniques that will never really yield clean coal?  The most promising  possibility presented by Fallows,  one where  the Chinese are once again far ahead of Americans,  is underground gasification of coal.  Of course there will be problems with perfecting this technology, but the prospect  of tapping the nation's massive coal reserves, while leaving the worst of the pollutants below the surface is compelling and deserving of far more federal investment. 


 


And where can the funds be found? It is ridiculous to pursue the reductions in social programs that the incoming  congressional Republicans are touting.  Too many people - young, old and in-between - are desperately hurting due to the weak economy.  The most logical source of funding is our bloated military budget. Once again, I suggest that you visit the National Priorities Project website to explore the facts regarding the federal budget. In particular view their  Cost of War  calculator and their Tradeoffs tool  in order to get a stronger notion of the possibilities.


(Note: Clicking on the items appearing in blue will link you to the mentioned sites.)

Andrew Bacevich Wields the Painful Truth:

In his compelling book, The Limits of Power, Andrew Bacevich cuts to the chase, telling the painful truths that we in the United States do not want to hear. 

Bacevich argues that:
The chief desire of the American people , whether they admit it or not, is that nothing should disrupt their access to ... goods, ... oil, and ... credit.  The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part though the distribution of largesse at home and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad (largely the business of the executive branch.)

From time to time, various public figures - even presidents- make the point that dependence may not be a good thing.  Yet meaningful action to reduce this condition is notable by its absence.  It's not difficult to see why.  The centers of authority within Washington - above all, the White House and the upper echelons of  the national security state - actually benefit from this dependency. It provides the source of  status, power, and prerogatives.  Imagine the impact just on the Pentagon  were this country actually to achieve anything approaching energy independence.  U.S. Central Command would go out of business.  Dozens of bases in and around the Middle East would close. The navy's Fifth Fleet would stand down.  Weapons contracts worth tens of billions would risk being canceled.So rather than addressing the problem of dependence, members of our political class seem hell-bent on exacerbating it....

As a nation, we must begin living within our means. We must strive vigorously for energy independence.  And we must stop our misguided military adventures launched to sustain an imperial dominion vastly beyond our reach.

You can see a 2008 interview of Bacevich, conducted by Bill Moyers, at:   http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html